Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2007-03-27 13:18:21
seymorebutts443
Ready for combat
+211|6591|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA

NemeSiS-Factor wrote:

Aiming one of the atom bombs for Tokyo, instead of some back country town?
The original target for the bomb Fat Man was Tokyo, but there was too much cloud cover over the city to have a reliable drop, so they went to the secondary target of Nagasaki and dropped it there.

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Hindsight.

But if France didn't put so much stock in the 'impregnability' of their little line of defense, it would've probably been a bit easier to retake Europe. Additionally, PR contests between Allied generals could've been done away with. Finally, Germany could've been remobilized and, with Allied power, help to take down the Soviet Union and done away with the Cold War altogether.
I thought Hitler ordered the Magionat (sp) Line to be blown up after he took France.
One thing about the Maginot line was the fact that it did not cover Argonnes forests, where alot of German infantry and vehicles came through. Had the Argonnes forest been covered by a decent number of troops and defenses, France probally wouldnt have fallen.

Last edited by seymorebutts443 (2007-03-27 13:20:09)

2007-03-27 13:23:24
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6538|Texas - Bigger than France
Desegretation of the armed services could have been a lot better.

Plus cooler uniforms and more John Wayne.
2007-03-27 13:31:46
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6350
WWII if fought in the Early thirties would have been a " brush war " at best and their were many legitamate reasons to fight it then.

Our opponents have made their long range plans very well known. Only a fool or coward would choose to ignore or deliberatly misinterpet them.

Attack any despot early before they build up their Milliitary might and solidify their positions.

   You won't have The unanimous support of every last person " who just doesn't get it "

Along they way  you may lose the weak of heart and weak of will.
There will always be political opportunists who will use any situation to further their political power at the expense of your men and women in harms way. But in the end a small war beats a big one.
Taking the legs out of alliances one at a time, Weakest first and letting the largest and strongest become isolated if it cannot stand on its own with its own resources.

Appeasement and sanctions are feable and hollow tactics to use on a non democratic power.
The leaders you face don't feel the effects themselves and the oppressed People who they rule were long ago Disarmed by their government. They can't vote them out or remove them by force.

Imagine the lives that could have been saved if World leaders had the will to confront Hitler in 1937 just to name one. Alas some people are destine to repeat history.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-03-27 13:35:03)

2007-03-27 13:36:11
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6551

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

WWII if fought in the Early thirties would have been a " brush war " at best and their were many legitamate reasons to fight it then.

Our opponents have made their long range plans very well known. Only a fool or coward would choose to ignore or deliberatly misinterpet them.

Attack any despot early before they build up their Milliitary might and solidify their positions.

   You won't have The unanimous support of every last person " who just doesn't get it "

Along they way  you may lose the weak of heart and weak of will.
There will always be political opportunists who will use any situation to further their political power at the expense of your men and women in harms way. But in the end a small war beats a big one.
Taking the legs out of alliances one at a time, Weakest first and letting the largest and strongest become isolated if it cannot stand on its own with its own resources.

Appeasement and sanctions are feable and hollow tactics to use on a non democratic power.
The leaders you face don't feel the effects themselves and the oppressed People who they rule were long ago Disarmed by their government. They can't vote them out or remove them by force.

Imagine the lives that could have been saved if World leaders had the will to confront Hitler in 1937 just to name one. Alas some people are destine to repeat history.
Tackling Hitler in the early 30s would have meant Europe turning communist, starting with Spain & Germany.
2007-03-27 13:37:04
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6645
What could have been done better?... Not appeasing Hitler in the first place.
2007-03-27 14:27:51
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6350

CameronPoe wrote:

Tackling Hitler in the early 30s would have meant Europe turning communist, starting with Spain & Germany.
Excellent prediction, no way to know for sure but I was merely speaking of W.W.II as it ran.

Still I would have personally prefered to let communism run its course and die than go through W.W.II. Just my opinion.
2007-03-27 14:30:56
Eagle
Togs8896 is my evil alter ego
+567|6627|New Hampshire, USA
The whole Holocaust thingy could have been done without...
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/14407/Sig_Pats.jpg
2007-03-27 14:56:38
Reaper Hilarus
Member
+0|6344

seymorebutts443 wrote:

NemeSiS-Factor wrote:

Aiming one of the atom bombs for Tokyo, instead of some back country town?
The original target for the bomb Fat Man was Tokyo, but there was too much cloud cover over the city to have a reliable drop, so they went to the secondary target of Nagasaki and dropped it there.
No, Fat Man's primary target was Kokura, secondary was Nagasaki.  Tokyo was never considered as a target for either bomb.

seymorebutts443 wrote:

One thing about the Maginot line was the fact that it did not cover Argonnes forests, where alot of German infantry and vehicles came through. Had the Argonnes forest been covered by a decent number of troops and defenses, France probally wouldnt have fallen.
The German's didn't advance through the Argonne, they went through the Ardennes.  And even if France had concentrated their armour at key locations on the Meuse, France would have eventually fallen, regardless of how much "better" French tanks were.
2007-03-27 15:37:24
seymorebutts443
Ready for combat
+211|6591|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA

Reaper Hilarus wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

One thing about the Maginot line was the fact that it did not cover Argonnes forests, where alot of German infantry and vehicles came through. Had the Argonnes forest been covered by a decent number of troops and defenses, France probally wouldnt have fallen.
The German's didn't advance through the Argonne, they went through the Ardennes.  And even if France had concentrated their armour at key locations on the Meuse, France would have eventually fallen, regardless of how much "better" French tanks were.
goddamn i knew it started with an A, french tanks were far inferior to german armor, the frenchies had maybe a large calibre gun of 57mm, maybe a little more. the krauts had upwards of 75mm and far better armor protection. but with the combination of AT mines, infantry support and AT guns along with obstacles the germans would've been forced into retreat.
2007-03-27 18:09:56
Reaper Hilarus
Member
+0|6344

seymorebutts443 wrote:

Reaper Hilarus wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

One thing about the Maginot line was the fact that it did not cover Argonnes forests, where alot of German infantry and vehicles came through. Had the Argonnes forest been covered by a decent number of troops and defenses, France probally wouldnt have fallen.
The German's didn't advance through the Argonne, they went through the Ardennes.  And even if France had concentrated their armour at key locations on the Meuse, France would have eventually fallen, regardless of how much "better" French tanks were.
goddamn i knew it started with an A, french tanks were far inferior to german armor, the frenchies had maybe a large calibre gun of 57mm, maybe a little more. the krauts had upwards of 75mm and far better armor protection. but with the combination of AT mines, infantry support and AT guns along with obstacles the germans would've been forced into retreat.
I still disagree.  The French had better tanks, the problem was they had poor tank crews.  And not only did they have poor tank crews, they never concentrated thier armor when, and where, they should have (I forget how few tanks were spread over a 150 mile long front).  French tanks, specifically the Char B1, had for the most part better guns and armor.  The Char had a 47 and 75mm gun.  The Panzer III F & G had only a 37mm, sometimes 50mm.  The Char had 40mm thick armor, Panzer III A, B, C only 15mm in the front & D, E, F had 30mm.  When the Germans advanced through the Ardennes in 1940, they had mostly Panzer III A-C, only a few F's.
So that's:

37mm gun & 30mm armor

compared to:

47mm and 75mm gun & 40mm armor.

If I remember right, only a few, if any, German 75mm guns ventured into France during the opening phases of the invasion.  I could be wrong about that though.
2007-03-27 18:11:36
Archer
rapes face
+161|6420|Canuckistan
Paying more attention to the Hammerzeit. Such an awesome dance style, lost in time.
2007-03-27 18:14:59
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6464

Turquoise wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Tried to find something like this, but couldn't.

What do you guys think could have been done better in WWII?
Things that could have increased the overall casualty loss, increased the number of battles won, etc.

I guess you could post things from any war as well.
We could have properly rebuilt Germany after WW1....
If they did WW2 wouldn't have even happened.
2007-03-27 18:27:15
acEofspadEs6313
Shiny! Let's be bad guys.
+102|6688|NAS Jacksonville, Florida

Reaper Hilarus wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

Reaper Hilarus wrote:


The German's didn't advance through the Argonne, they went through the Ardennes.  And even if France had concentrated their armour at key locations on the Meuse, France would have eventually fallen, regardless of how much "better" French tanks were.
goddamn i knew it started with an A, french tanks were far inferior to german armor, the frenchies had maybe a large calibre gun of 57mm, maybe a little more. the krauts had upwards of 75mm and far better armor protection. but with the combination of AT mines, infantry support and AT guns along with obstacles the germans would've been forced into retreat.
I still disagree.  The French had better tanks, the problem was they had poor tank crews.  And not only did they have poor tank crews, they never concentrated thier armor when, and where, they should have (I forget how few tanks were spread over a 150 mile long front).  French tanks, specifically the Char B1, had for the most part better guns and armor.  The Char had a 47 and 75mm gun.  The Panzer III F & G had only a 37mm, sometimes 50mm.  The Char had 40mm thick armor, Panzer III A, B, C only 15mm in the front & D, E, F had 30mm.  When the Germans advanced through the Ardennes in 1940, they had mostly Panzer III A-C, only a few F's.
So that's:

37mm gun & 30mm armor

compared to:

47mm and 75mm gun & 40mm armor.

If I remember right, only a few, if any, German 75mm guns ventured into France during the opening phases of the invasion.  I could be wrong about that though.
Low velocity 75mm guns aren't as effective as people think they are. I'd take a high velocity 37mm gun over a low velocity 75mm gun any day.
2007-03-27 18:27:53
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6401|North Carolina

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Tried to find something like this, but couldn't.

What do you guys think could have been done better in WWII?
Things that could have increased the overall casualty loss, increased the number of battles won, etc.

I guess you could post things from any war as well.
We could have properly rebuilt Germany after WW1....
If they did WW2 wouldn't have even happened.
Exactly...  That's why I suggested it.
2007-03-27 18:37:19
Reaper Hilarus
Member
+0|6344

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

Reaper Hilarus wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

goddamn i knew it started with an A, french tanks were far inferior to german armor, the frenchies had maybe a large calibre gun of 57mm, maybe a little more. the krauts had upwards of 75mm and far better armor protection. but with the combination of AT mines, infantry support and AT guns along with obstacles the germans would've been forced into retreat.
I still disagree.  The French had better tanks, the problem was they had poor tank crews.  And not only did they have poor tank crews, they never concentrated thier armor when, and where, they should have (I forget how few tanks were spread over a 150 mile long front).  French tanks, specifically the Char B1, had for the most part better guns and armor.  The Char had a 47 and 75mm gun.  The Panzer III F & G had only a 37mm, sometimes 50mm.  The Char had 40mm thick armor, Panzer III A, B, C only 15mm in the front & D, E, F had 30mm.  When the Germans advanced through the Ardennes in 1940, they had mostly Panzer III A-C, only a few F's.
So that's:

37mm gun & 30mm armor

compared to:

47mm and 75mm gun & 40mm armor.

If I remember right, only a few, if any, German 75mm guns ventured into France during the opening phases of the invasion.  I could be wrong about that though.
Low velocity 75mm guns aren't as effective as people think they are. I'd take a high velocity 37mm gun over a low velocity 75mm gun any day.
I forgot to mention the high and low velocity, of which the Pnzr III / IV  had a low velocity 37 and 75mm gun.
And I would take the same as you.  The higher the better.

Last edited by Reaper Hilarus (2007-03-27 18:37:51)

2007-03-28 12:51:11
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6350

Turquoise wrote:

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


We could have properly rebuilt Germany after WW1....
If they did WW2 wouldn't have even happened.
Exactly...  That's why I suggested it.
That's what we are doing in Iraq right now, Rebuilding,

we never left Germany after W.W.II despite guerilla attacks.

The last Japanese soldier finally gave up in 1974, some people never catch on though, good post !
2007-03-28 13:47:58
Reaper Hilarus
Member
+0|6344
But he (the Japanese guy) honestly didn't know the war was over.
2007-03-28 15:28:44
seymorebutts443
Ready for combat
+211|6591|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA

Reaper Hilarus wrote:

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

Reaper Hilarus wrote:


I still disagree.  The French had better tanks, the problem was they had poor tank crews.  And not only did they have poor tank crews, they never concentrated thier armor when, and where, they should have (I forget how few tanks were spread over a 150 mile long front).  French tanks, specifically the Char B1, had for the most part better guns and armor.  The Char had a 47 and 75mm gun.  The Panzer III F & G had only a 37mm, sometimes 50mm.  The Char had 40mm thick armor, Panzer III A, B, C only 15mm in the front & D, E, F had 30mm.  When the Germans advanced through the Ardennes in 1940, they had mostly Panzer III A-C, only a few F's.
So that's:

37mm gun & 30mm armor

compared to:

47mm and 75mm gun & 40mm armor.

If I remember right, only a few, if any, German 75mm guns ventured into France during the opening phases of the invasion.  I could be wrong about that though.
Low velocity 75mm guns aren't as effective as people think they are. I'd take a high velocity 37mm gun over a low velocity 75mm gun any day.
I forgot to mention the high and low velocity, of which the Pnzr III / IV  had a low velocity 37 and 75mm gun.
And I would take the same as you.  The higher the better.
all those french guns mean absolute shit when the Luftwaffe controls the skys and you surprise em. Certainly low level He-111 bombing runs and Ju-87 Stuka attacks demolished their defenses, and french aircraft was no mach for the Me-109s being used. plus the Me-109s could carry out their fair share of ground attack roles, 4 110lb bombs or a single 550lb bomb, more than enough to deal with fixed gun emplacments and armored vehicles the brits and the french had.
2007-03-28 15:29:36
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6350

Reaper Hilarus wrote:

But he (the Japanese guy) honestly didn't know the war was over.
he probebly voted for kerry too.
2007-03-28 15:39:03
seymorebutts443
Ready for combat
+211|6591|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Reaper Hilarus wrote:

But he (the Japanese guy) honestly didn't know the war was over.
he probebly voted for kerry too.
dont turn this into some political bullshit argument please.
2007-03-28 16:10:50
AndrewKF
Member
+3|6364

Velker wrote:

England, France, and Russia should have set Hitler in his place as soon as he started to push west, taking over whatever country he felt like. In an effort to appease Hitler, the three countries backed off and hoped he would eventually be fulfilled in his conquest for territory. Had the leaders of France, England, Russia (possibly backed up by the U.S.) met the Nazis with military force the moment Hitler tried to widen the German border I believe a lot of trouble could have been avoided.
That was not possible...
First find something about Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact )
You might find out as well that after Germans attacked Poland from west on 1st September Russia invaded 17 days later from the east. Poland was fu***d from Beginning. So i might be wrong but Russia in one way started the war as well as Germany. France was defeated in the same amount of time that Poland what it was very weird because they were already prepared for war had larger and better equipped forces than Poland, add to that British Expeditionary Forces around 40.000 troops and already forming units from defeated middle European countries. Like damn what the bloody hell happened, OK along with Wehrmacht, Italian army marched to France but it was poorly equipped, trained, with no experience and low morale. Italian troops didn't had many successes.
I think if France and Great Britain would fulfilled their obligations to treaties they signed with Poland,  2WW would finish definitively earlier.
2007-03-28 16:14:01
acEofspadEs6313
Shiny! Let's be bad guys.
+102|6688|NAS Jacksonville, Florida

seymorebutts443 wrote:

Reaper Hilarus wrote:

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:


Low velocity 75mm guns aren't as effective as people think they are. I'd take a high velocity 37mm gun over a low velocity 75mm gun any day.
I forgot to mention the high and low velocity, of which the Pnzr III / IV  had a low velocity 37 and 75mm gun.
And I would take the same as you.  The higher the better.
all those french guns mean absolute shit when the Luftwaffe controls the skys and you surprise em. Certainly low level He-111 bombing runs and Ju-87 Stuka attacks demolished their defenses, and french aircraft was no mach for the Me-109s being used. plus the Me-109s could carry out their fair share of ground attack roles, 4 110lb bombs or a single 550lb bomb, more than enough to deal with fixed gun emplacments and armored vehicles the brits and the french had.
That Dewotine 520 with it's 20mm Hispano cannon was a beast and was at par with the the Me-109Es, and with the Me-109Fs, if they got lucky.
2007-03-28 16:47:10
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6383
No M4A4(I think its A4 model) Sherman. The gun wasnt worth shit, if we had put a 90mm and well....fuck it, we should of came up with the design for the M26 Pershing sooner.
2007-03-28 16:50:07
theexterminator222
Banned
+16|6306
the allies should've backed the liberals in the Spanish Revolution.  Then the Nazis would get that the allies weren't a bunch of pussies and therefore WWII wouldn't have happened.
2007-03-28 16:53:17
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6383

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Hindsight.

But if France didn't put so much stock in the 'impregnability' of their little line of defense, it would've probably been a bit easier to retake Europe. Additionally, PR contests between Allied generals could've been done away with. Finally, Germany could've been remobilized and, with Allied power, help to take down the Soviet Union and done away with the Cold War altogether.
He wins.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard